The Heavy Vehicle National Law ( HVNL ) provides a single national law for the regulation of heavy vehicle operations across most Australian jurisdictions, except Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
The purpose of this article is to offer clear guidance and insights on achieving compliance with Australia’s HVNL in light of decided cases in Queensland, Australia.
The Heavy Vehicle National Law is supported by 5 regulations which consist of:
Each State and Territory covered by the HVNL has passed its own legislation that reiterates or modifies the HVNL for that State or Territory. See Queensland’s HVNL legislation.
We discuss NSW’s HVNL separately.
Compliance with the Heavy Vehicle National Laws is crucial for heavy vehicle operators for a number of reasons.
In our experience, compliance is important because of:
HVNL ensures public safety by regulating vehicles exceeding 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. By adhering to HVNL standards, operators contribute to safer roads and reduce risks.
Managing heavy vehicles’ impact on the environment is essential. HVNL helps mitigate environmental harm caused by transport activities.
Proper compliance aids in preserving road infrastructure. Well-maintained roads benefit everyone and enhance overall transportation efficiency.
HVNL promotes industry productivity by setting guidelines for efficient and safe operations. Compliant practices lead to smoother logistics and better business outcomes.
HVNL emphasizes shared responsibility across the supply chain. All parties must minimize risks associated with transport activities, ensuring safety for everyone involved.
In summary, HVNL compliance fosters a consistent and safe environment for heavy vehicle drivers and operators, benefiting both individuals and the industry in general.
Under the Heavy Vehicle National Law, there are several key provisions and requirements that businesses need to adhere to.
Let’s delve into the essential aspects:
Parties in the chain of responsibility (CoR) must ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the safety of their transport activities. This includes activities related to the use of heavy vehicles on roads, such as consigning, packing, loading, and receiving goods. CoR compliance policies, working procedures, induction processes, and performance reporting for executive officers are crucial components of this duty.
Remember that CoR compliance is essential even if no incident or accident occurs. These practices contribute to safer heavy vehicle operations on our roads.
GrainCorp Operations Limited contravened section 26H of the Heavy Vehicle National Regulation in QLD. As a result, the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) issued an improvement notice citing its contraventions of HVNL regulations. GrainCorp contested this through an internal review.
The Review Decision emphasized GrainCorp’s responsibility as a loading manager to control over-mass heavy vehicles on public roads. DTMR directed GrainCorp to implement a system to reduce vehicle mass to comply with axle group mass limits.
The Tribunal’s review focused on whether GrainCorp had breached its primary duty under the HVNL and asked questions regarding safety risks, GrainCorp’s knowledge, available alternatives, and associated costs.
In the absence of evidence demonstrating practicable alternatives for GrainCorp to avoid overloading incidents, the Tribunal revoked the improvement notice, emphasizing the necessity of identifying valid bases for regulatory enforcement under the HVNL.
In this case, NM & AA Foley Contracting Pty Ltd pleaded guilty in Holland Park Magistrates Court to 37 charges of violating Section 26 of the Heavy Vehicle National Law Act 2012 (Qld) for failing to meet safety duties in its transport activities. The violations included exceeding regulated hours and non-compliance with fatigue regulations.
The court ordered a fine of $1,200,000 against NM & AA Foley Contracting Pty Ltd.
The case involves Mr. Eden, an employee of Kalari, driving a prime mover carrying a substantial quantity of prilled ammonium nitrate that caused explosions and subsequent damage to the State-controlled road and a rail bridge owned by Queensland Rail. The plaintiffs in the actions claimed the costs of repair for the damage caused.
The court considered various statutory provisions, including the Transport Operations Act, Heavy Vehicle National Law, and the Insurance Contracts Act.
The court dismissed the applications for summary judgment, emphasizing that the issues involving the construction of exclusion clauses, statutory provisions, and their application to disputed facts warranted a trial. The judge highlighted the complexity of legal arguments and the presence of disputed facts, indicating that a full hearing may be justified.
The court discussed the HVNL in the context of the case. The defendants, Kalari and Mr. Eden, raised defenses related to the HVNL, specifically citing sections 89, 223, and 228 of the HVNL. Dornoch, the third party, argued that the breach of these HVNL provisions, along with the various provisions concerning the transportation of sodium nitrate, meant that the transportation was not “in accordance with all legal state or federal legislation,” triggering the application of exclusion clause 17 in the insurance policy.
Additionally, the court considered the defendants’ plea that the prime mover was on fire before Mr. Eden drove it from the road, which Dornoch argued indicated that the vehicle must have been “unsafe” and therefore being driven in breach of section 89 of the HVNL. The court’s consideration of these arguments demonstrates the relevance and significance of the HVNL in the case.
GJK is appealing her conviction for possessing suspicious property following a June 2020 incident in Townsville. She was fined $1,000 and the $9,610 seized was given to the state, with a conviction recorded. Grounds for appeal include errors in the legality of the vehicle stop and search, and the unreasonable verdict lacking evidence support. Police surveilled GJK’s vehicle near a location associated with drug activity, leading to a search where the money was found. The magistrate’s decision to deem the vehicle stop lawful was wrong, resulting in the successful appeal, overturning the conviction and forfeiture order, with costs to be determined.
This case does not technically deal with violations of HVNL but it specifically mentions that a police officer may stop a heavy vehicle, if the purpose for stopping the vehicle is HVNL compliance or enforcement among others.
Non-compliance with the HVNL can result in significant penalties.
These penalties are designed to ensure safety and adherence to regulations within the heavy vehicle industry. Here are some potential consequences for non-compliance:
It’s essential for drivers, operators, and businesses to understand and adhere to the HVNL regulations to avoid these penalties.
